Drew O.'s Profile

Really interesting post! Thanks for sharing. This industry is fascinating to me in large part because so much is changing around how music is created, consumed, and shared. You raise some very good points around the benefits of a site like this as well as potential hurdles it faces. Really interesting about how they scrap data from all the various sources.

Do you think there are stakeholders in this space that Hype Machine creates disproportionate value for? I wonder if they should be charging more (or less) for certain aspects of its offering depending on where it’s true value lies.

Great post!

Very interesting post. Mint is a great example of a company that leverages data and analytics to create and capture value. I am actually surprised by the “relatively low” price that it was sold for. We have learned in this class that data is king and I think given Intuit’s offerings (turbo tax etc.) that this was a really good purchase for them. Aside from the tailored offerings that mint can offer and the additional synergies that Inuit gains through this purchase, I wonder if there are other ways to monetize this wealth of data…? I’m sure it’s something they are looking into. Great read. Thank you!

Great post! The airline industry is definitely one that has a ton of data on their customers. Interesting point that you brought up about Delta knowing whether a customer has purchased tickets on other airlines, if they have a Delta credit card. Are they able to mine that data to see other purchasing patterns unrelated to plane ticket purchases? If so they can probably tailor offers that way too. Very interesting what you wrote about re: baggage tracking. Great use of data and analytics! I’m guessing competitors will be following right behind them.

Great post! Thanks for sharing. Like the other comments above, I had no clue that the blue M&M came from a crowd-sourced approach. It sounds like there was a tremendous investment: time, money, and resources, put behind this campaign. Clearly, the campaign was successful, but would be curious to hear whether you think the campaign would have led to same results if the company had spent that money on announcing a new color (or invested on other marketing tactics)?…

My guess would be no. I do think the crowd-sourced approach stretched Mars’ investment further and was thus ultimately more successful than an alternative. The residual value of the “let’s ask our consumers” approach I *think* carried extra weight. Just an interesting question that your blog made me think of.

Can’t wait to read your next post!

Great post! Really interesting to see examples of crowd-sourcing very specific requests. I always like to think about whether the incentives to participate are optimized. Do you think if the award was bigger, Netflix would have gotten a better outcome? If it was smaller, would the outcome have been significantly worse? Always interesting to debate, and your blog really made me think of this.

Can’t wait to read your next post!

Great post! Really interesting to read about a double-sided crowd-sourced platform. It definitely adds to the complexity (and importance) of ensuring appropriate participation on both sides. I think the challenges you laid out are spot on, especially the part about being location-constrained. The scale, participation, and ultimately the network effects could be a challenge in specific, smaller geographies. On the flip-side, this could be an opportunity to leverage in other larger geographies. It will definitely be interesting to see how this company competes in smaller markets and how they fend off competitors who are chomping at the bit to steal share.

Can’t wait to read the next one!

Hi HF – interesting post (and response to Jon’s comments)! Like Jon, I too am interested in whether Groupon could have adjusted their business model to enable network effects to work positively in their favor. I still like the idea of Groupon, in theory, but like you and many others am not sold on their execution or sustainability.

One other question that comes to mind is: who are the users of Groupon? That is to say, what type of store, restaurant etc. is willing to give away 50, 60, even 70% of their margin to attract new users. More often than not, it is organizations that were already struggling and were “trying to turn things around” by gaining volume. In my opinion, that’s not a great starting point for one side of your platform. Consumers win by saving, but may not have always received the product or service they were expecting.

Great post! You raise a lot of interesting issues. Can’t wait to read your next one.

Really interesting post! I never knew how OpenTable made money… I am actually surprised by how costly (to restaurants) it is to use OpenTable, especially given how difficult it is to succeed in the restaurant business, and how small margins in that industry can be. I would be curious to see if OpenTable provides analytics to it’s customers (restaurants) to prove that it is truly adding value. I.e., how many new parties are booking at a given restaurant because of the OpenTable app, website, etc.? There are surely ways they can prove their value both to potential and to existing customers.

You make a great point in this blog – they definitely have the first mover advantage, but I am interested – like you are – to see how strong the network effects truly are…. and whether Yelp’s service will significantly pull users away from the OpenTable platform.

Great post! Can’t wait to read your next one.

DB – this is a great post. It’s amazing to see how successful Care.com has been and I like how you tied in a lot of what we are learning in class to this case study. I am assuming Care.com was not the first organization to try to connect people with nannies, care-givers, etc. If that is correct would you attribute most of Care.com’s success to its ability to harness the power of network effects? Or, is it just a better/differentiated product and network effects allowed them to scale more effectively?

I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on how Care.com can address the challenges you described above. If you worked there would you be REALLY concerned, or just “a littler weary” of the threat of new entrants?

Really interesting post! Can’t wait to read your next one.

You raise a great point. I wonder how executives balance keeping the roots of what a “traditional ballpark” experience is with providing fans a “new & improved” experience. Some teams are more hesitant than others to change (e.g., the Cubs used to have a more stringent rules on where advertisements were placed throughout the ballpark, but have recently loosened those restrictions). Given how much money is at stake, I am sure there are a lot of executives thinking about this today…and I’m guessing most teams will make every effort to capture more and more value from its fans.

Absolutely! I recently read an article that suggested the MLB is “playing catch up” to the NFL in this regard. I think we will see more and more baseball stadiums with wifi and other “experience enhancing” innovations. I personally like being disconnected from everything when at a sporting event, but I am guessing I am in the minority.

Jon – great questions! Only time will tell how virtual reality will impact the sports industry more broadly, but I think executives within sports organizations need to be thinking about this. With the improvements in HD TV and potential entrants of virtual reality and other entrants, teams will need to cater towards the experience customers WANT to have, and not just the traditional model that has worked in the past.

Thanks! I don’t know those specific statistics, but I completely agree that these technologies are only as good as the impact they have. If there is low awareness (and therefore low usage), their ability to provide and capture value will be limited.

Great post – one I can relate to personally as I was the last person I knew to have a Blackberry. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the iPhone success was driven by its innovative design and experience. I would add, that they were able to create additional value by having all apple devices synced together. There were no barriers to switching between an iPhone, iPad, and Macbook and, in fact, some interesting synergies if you had all three! I am not sure how Blackberry is going to recover, but I am interested in seeing what, if anything, they do. Your post also made me wonder how sustainable Apple’s current position is. What additional digital innovations do you think Apple needs invest in, in order to maintain it’s position in this increasingly competitive market?

Very interesting stuff here – your post made me somewhat nostalgic. Looking forward to reading your next post!

This is great! It’s interesting to see how, sports in particular, are leveraging digital innovations to create and capture more value. I would be curious to see if this specific application really takes off though. Everyone loves upgrades, but why wouldn’t someone who can’t make a game sell their ticket on a place like stubhub? Presumably they can get at least face-value (and often more), while I would guess selling through this platform would be less lucrative. That said, this idea of teams engaging fans real-time at the event presents a huge opportunity. If pogoseat can master the technology I think there are other applications, in sports or otherwise, for this type of service. Airlines already do this with upgrades. I wonder if there are any learnings from that industry that can be applied here.

Really interesting stuff! Looking forward to reading your next blog post.

Jon – great blog! This is an interesting application of what we have learned thus far in class. Reading your blog made me realize that digital transformation not only impacts industries (TV) but also disrupts specific players in said industries differently – and at times disproportionately. As I was reading your thoughts, I couldn’t help but wonder how far this trend will go? Will “Late Night” shows disappear altogether eventually (and only exist in the form of short skits online), or is there something that draws viewers to watch a more cohesive comedy skit at the end of the day? If the former, how can the studios capture value? I actually think this presents an interesting opportunity to capture more specific data on viewers (ie perhaps a certain subset of viewers like a certain type of skit…advertising becomes more valuable because you know exactly who likes what type of skit and who you are reaching).

Just my thoughts. Looking forward to reading your next blog!